Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Plotor (talk | contribs) at 19:32, 27 January 2016 (→Template:StrategyWiki: spelling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< January 26 January 28 >

January 27

Template:Video game console timeline

Unused, not updated since 2012. Unclear what timeline is about. Video game consoles in North America? Production? Sales? If so, nothing that can't be explained in text. Soetermans. T / C 15:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Final Fantasy locations

Two articles listed, not necessary to have in a siderbar template. Soetermans. T / C 15:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StrategyWiki

Unnecessary, unencyclopedic to point to one provider of walkthroughs. StrategyWiki's welcome message reads: "Welcome to StrategyWiki, a collaborative and freely-licensed wiki for all your video game strategy guide and walkthrough needs! The guides here can be edited by anyone, so feel free to jump in and improve something!" No different than GameFAQs, CheatCodeCentral or any random cheat or walkthrough guide. It fails WP:ELYES, as it is not "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" to know how to finish a game. As it is user-submitted, we can't tell if it is accurate to begin with. WP:ELNO No. 1: it is not a "unique resource", as it is a "how-to" guide. Soetermans. T / C 15:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of content from some of the wikipedia pages was transwiki'd to strategywiki, and the links are provided so people who initially felt the information belonged now know where to find it. The template is created to make it easier to link. The links are all within the "External Links" section, so it's not meant to be encyclopedic, it's for users to find further resources that don't belong on wikipedia. -- Prod (Talk) 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They do not belong in the External link section either. WP:ELNO No. 1: a walkthrough won't be used beyond for a featured article, as these are user-submitted and also... No. 2: it's unverifiable. We can't tell if these guides are actually accurate. No. 12: only open wikis with a substantial history are okay. There are articles on Nukapedia, on Memory Alpha and on Wookieepedia, but not on StrategyWiki. Wikipedia is written for a large audience. That's why video game articles describe gameplay in general, not in detail. So after reading an article about a video game, the general reader would have more use of a link to an official website, an interview with the developer or an in-depth behind-the-scenes piece. Being presented with a guide on how to finish the game is not necessary. Further more, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other websites that offer the same content like StrategyWiki. There are strategy guides like Prima Games and there's GameFAQs. Having those would be considered inappropriate as well. Why make an exception for StrategyWiki? --Soetermans. T / C 16:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to review the entirety of ELNO#2, which is "A website which misleads the reader by [etc.]"; StrategyWiki clearly does not fall under the category of a website attempting to mislead the audience. As well, their material is not unverifiable--go and play the game yourself.

Regards ELNO#1, walkthroughs are clearly material-unique and which go above and beyond what an FA would provide. Please review that statement as well.

Regards ELNO#12, StrategyWiki is an open wiki with a substantial history--that it is not deemed WP:N at this time is irrelevant to that question.

Regards your "what about every other walkthrough site", this is an interesting one but the deletion of a template does not factor into it. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". To learn how to finish a game does not mean knowing more about the game, which why it fails WP:ELYES No. 3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". You know I'm also heavily involved in editing video game related articles. I'm always making sure that the general reader of Wikipedia can understand a video game article. So why would it be "encyclopedic" for the general reader to know how to finish Arkanoid? ELNO No. 2 reads: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". I'm not saying that StrategyWiki is "attempting" to mislead, I'm saying it can't be checked. I do not own Arkanoid for instance; I can't check if that information is correct. I've crossed the nobility point out, you're right. Concerning other walkthrough websites, maybe I'm not phrasing it right at this time. --Soetermans. T / C 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The walkthrough is only a portion of what is covered. There are also comparisons of different versions of the games that were released StrategyWiki:Arkanoid/Versions and large sections of appendices which contain lists for all kinds of in-game content. The difference from prima games/gamefaqs is that it's an open wiki, with a compatible license to Wikipedia. This is useful as a target to transwiki any un-encyclopedic content, as was done with a number of game-guide books from wikibooks. -- Prod (Talk) 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on what Soetermans's personal bias against the site is? Maybe if he came to the site and joined the community, he would have less misgivings about directing people to learn much more about a game than what Wikipedia is permitted to present to a reader? Plotor (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia should not endorse one strategy guide website over another. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, StrategyWiki houses all content which was jettisoned by Wikipedia during the great content reform, and is thus a spiritual extension of Wikipedia. It provides an encyclopedic reference to game content that falls outside of Wikipedia's scope, thus providing the reader with another avenue to research specific topics not permissible in the Wikipedia article by Wikipedia's standards. StrategyWiki is clearly a notable, well maintained, reference site of historical note, and deserves to be represented in Wikipedia's knowledge base. Plotor (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Steam app

Inappropriate to link to a commercial website (WP:ELNO No. 14), unnecessary to have it in a template form. Soetermans. T / C 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. ELNO #14 does not seem particularly applicable to me. The link qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL, as the content is directly controlled by the developer / publisher, and not by Steam. Obviously, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL may exclude it on a case by case basis (depending on what other official sites are available for the subject). It may also be of use for sourcing per WP:VG/OFFICIAL. Murph9000 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why being directly controlled would mean it's okay. It's safe to assume every developer and publisher wants to sell as much as possible, like F-19 Stealth Fighter: "F-19 STEALTH FIGHTER takes combat flying to new heights. With dazzling graphics and authentic, real-world scenarios. F-19 creates action-packed excitement that keeps you coming back for more! It's easy to learn, but satisfyingly tough to master". Most official websites already have a buy or pre-order option (like H1Z1 does) and the Steam page itself also functions as a storefront, not a developer blog or behind-the-scenes featurette. --Soetermans. T / C 15:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Directly controlled by the subject of the article makes it WP:ELOFFICIAL. Additionally, ELNO #14 is about "lists of links", not individual links, as well as being explicitly invalidated by Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, at the top of WP:ELNO. Murph9000 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Most video games have their own official website, or an entry at a developer's website. Steam is a storefront. We do not allow links to, say, PSN, XBLA or Good Old Games. WP:ELPOINTS says: "...e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links". Steam is a commercial link. It is prohibited to use, even if it is "official". Further more, you cited WP:VG/OFFICIAL. It reads: "The crux is that "official" is not relevant to Wikipedia standards. In fan communities, all information released by the game developers is official and important. In a Wikipedia article, information released by game developers is no different from any other reliable source; in fact, it may be less reliable under possible interpretations of the policy regarding self-published or primary sources". So whether or not actually is "official" doesn't matter: it's a commercial link. --Soetermans. T / C 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ELNO #14 does not talk about individual commercial links. It talks about lists of links. It does not apply to an individual link. The specific page on Steam for an app is no more, and no less commercial than a directly published site by the subject. The key thing is that it qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL for EL purposes due to being directly controlled by the subject. In the absence of a better ELOFFICIAL, it is an entirely valid EL for a subject. The key distinction between Steam and a storefront, is that Steam serves content on the app page directly controlled by the developer / publisher of the subject. The point about WP:VG/OFFICIAL, is that "official" sources are permitted in the absence of a better source. Yes, WP does not give weight to "official", but the section you quoted from VG/OFFICIAL does not prohibit the use of such links for citations. The Steam app page qualifies as a valid source under VG/OFFICIAL. ELPOINTS does not create the prohibition you claim (if it did, we would be unable to link to the vast majority of directly published official sites for games); it establishes a permission to use links that might otherwise be excluded due to other guidelines. Such a prohibition would be on the basis of ELNO, which does not apply in the case of ELOFFICIAL.
    So, I reiterate, ELNO #14 is irrelevant on several counts (not a list, excepted for official). ELPOINTS #1 does not create any prohibition on its own, and does not establish any basis for deleting this template. Any link which qualifies as WP:ELOFFICIAL is acceptable unless it is excluded by WP:ELNEVER. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL must then be applied to available official links, but failure to be included at that point does not remove the complete exception to WP:ELNO. Links which are both commercial and official are both permitted, and in current vast majority use across WP:VG articles (as the official site link, wherever that happens to go).
    Murph9000 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please review the big, fat, disclaimer at WP:ELNO, which is "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to:" (bolding not mine). --Izno (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Like I said, WP:ELPOINTS says: "...e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links". I just realised something: how is a Steam page "official" anyway? And if its official, why is used in no more than three video game articles, and not in, say, Half-Life 2 or any other Valve game? --Soetermans. T / C 16:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That item in WP:ELPOINTS is specifically commenting on "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references". You are taking the statements out of context inappropriately.

    There are some WP:N games published which do not have their own official website--Steam being the only location for publishing.

    Usage doesn't factor into the question of whether this template should be deleted, there being no policy-based arguments being advanced. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not fair of you Izno, I shortened the statement, but I did not take it out of context. WP:ELPOINTS is a quick summary of WP:EL and reads: "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. This specifically includes e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links but allowed in footnoted citations". That ELPOINTS says commercial links are okay in footnoted citations is not the issue here. Steam might be the only place for publishing for some games, but that doesn't answer my question: how makes having a Steam entry "official"? And even if Steam is the only place of publishing, why link to it? Steam still is a digital distributor. ELPOINTS No. 3: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." To a certain extent, it does matter, unused templates aren't kept around either. With thousands of games listed on Steam, I'm asking why it isn't used, besides H1Z1, Caffeine and F-19 Stealth Fighter, on any video game articles. --Soetermans. T / C 17:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gamerdna game

Unused template. Soetermans. T / C 14:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yakuza chronology

Per a previous discussion, video game chronology templates generally aren't considered useful. It lists three games that are not canonical, while the rest of the games are subsequential. No reason to have a chronological template. Soetermans. T / C 14:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NAVBOX completely. Rogues gallery "is a police collection of pictures or photographs of criminals and suspects kept for identification purposes". What probably is meant is "In comics, a specific superhero's recurring and most notable enemies are sometimes referred to as a rogues gallery" (see Rogues gallery (disambiguation). So there is no article on the subject of this navbox, the most important reason for having one in the first place. It lists common enemies and villians from various fictional universes, but those do no have anything in common with each other. Soetermans. T / C 14:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPhone video game engines

There's already {{Video game engines}}, listing video game engines. It would be redundant to have separate navboxes for engines on each platform. Further more, this navbox supposedly lists engines "targeting" iOS. But Unreal Engine, Marmalade (software) or GameMaker: Studio aren't specifically "targeting" iOS. Soetermans. T / C 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pro gamer achievements

Practically unused template. Nothing that can't be explained with a standard wikitable (like seen here). Soetermans. T / C 14:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary sidebar with events and releases in the video game industry in 2006, divided by year. Soetermans. T / C 14:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Map of Square Enix companies

Unnecessary world map of locations of Square Enix companies. Nothing that can't be described in prose or in a list. Soetermans. T / C 14:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AtariAge company

Unfinished, unused Barely used template. Soetermans. T / C 14:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periglio/Reject

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CyMoBase

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prism/Lights

unused. Frietjes (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NewyorkadamGA

should be moved to userspace? Frietjes (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Hochreiter:2000book

unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miss Denmark

Three year versions of a pageant, all three AfD'ed. Two of them Crystal balls. The Banner talk 00:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete If the articles are deleted, then this template should go to but not before....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By now emptied by a third party. The Banner talk 16:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Quebec political party

Propose merging Template:Infobox Quebec political party and Template:Infobox Canadian political party with Template:Infobox political party.
These two infoboxes differ only minimally from the generic political party infobox and are therefore redundant rather than a really helpful simplification. PanchoS (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete This isn't as bad as some I've seen. There are several hardcoded parameters in the wrapper, so this looks a lot like a template whose purpose is to track the parameters in question. The main things to consider here are: a) are the parameters in question likely to change in a way that means that it's useful to be able to easily change them across articles, and b) are there likely to be enough new instances of the templates that it's convenient to have the parameters in place already? Both of these events seem possible, but reasonably unlikely; in this case, the wrapper probably costs more (in maintenance of wrapper templates) than it gains (in the ability to mass-update articles). But I'm not sure. --ais523 22:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trains portal/DYK date

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy currently contains a notice that "A fact from this article was used in the "Did you know" section of Portal:Trains on November 4, 2009.". For most (if not all) editors interested in discussing the RFK article that notice is nothing more than a piece of clutter that has to be scrolled past to get to the discussions. This template appears to have been superseded by the use of a parameter on the WikiProject template - e.g. {{WikiProject Trains|...|portaldykdate=January 7, 2016}} (which doesn't add to the visible clutter on the talk page). Note: If this TFD results in the deletion of the template then it could be followed by a TFD covering other similar templates (e.g. Template:OhioSAN, Template:VP Showcase, Template:MedportalSAC). DexDor (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template is useful. It is useful to editors to note that the content of an article is of interest to other editors who may not have made substantial studies on the article's topic. It is useful to me as the lead editor of the Trains portal to know at a glance if a fact from the article has appeared in the portal's DYK section (I try not to use an article in this section more than once). The alternative for me would be to scan the article's links list, which is a more lengthy procedure and an article's past use on the portal is more likely to be missed. With almost 11 years of edit history on the portal, scanning those archives every day would be prohibitively time consuming. This template is only used on articles where the main topic is not within the scope of WikiProject Trains (and the article's talk page would therefore not have the project banner), as can also be seen on Talk:Pocket watch, Talk:1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Talk:LGM-30 Minuteman and Talk:Joan Sims to name a few more. When I created this template, I tried to keep it as simple and small as possible to say just the most important fact (the date that the article appeared in the portal's DYK section, the text of the DYK fact is archived elsewhere). I added the |portaldykdate= parameter to the project banner because the majority of articles featured on the portal are within the project's scope, and having two banners that linked to the portal was overkill. The parameter in the project banner does not supersede this template; this template is for articles where the WikiProject Trains banner is not appropriate. As to adding banner clutter, there is probably a better solution, such as perhaps incorporating it into the BannerShell template, that is more suitable to a different discussion. Slambo (Speak) 20:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProjectBanners

Propose merging Template:WikiProjectBanners with Template:WikiProjectBannerShell.
It would be nice to merge these two templates so that we have a single banner shell template with all the same options. Currently {{WikiProjectBanners}} is a wrapper for {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} with the parameter |collapsed= set to "yes". So if we could replace all instances of {{WikiProjectBanners}} with {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes}} then we could just redirect or delete {{WikiProjectBanners}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a wrapper, so it's already been merged. Though you could convert Banners to be a subst-only version... -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is basically substitute the first template and either redirect it or make it subst-only. They both appear to be appropriate actions, though editors may prefer the subst-only version, if they are used to it. The second template doesn't need to be touched. —PC-XT+ 01:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct. I wasn't going to bother making a subst'able template because there is nothing about the name WikiProjectBanners which implies its collapsing function. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latin Union

Pointless navbox that just links to country articles for those countries who are members of the organization. We already have a list article that serves this function. If the template were to link instead to, say, articles on branches of the organization in different countries it might be worth keeping, but not as it stands. NSH002 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CLN navboxen and lists are not mutually exclusive. When reading a country article, one could conceivably wish to see similar countries, such as other members of the Latin Union. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    comment It's true that lists and navboxes are not necessarily exclusive, but in this case we have navbox entries pointing to articles that have nothing to do with the topic of the navbox. Instead they point to major articles on countries. It is doubtful that, at that level of generality, those articles would ever need to refer to a relatively unimportant and now-defunct organization. In addition, they are suffering from an excess of navboxes at the bottom, and we really don't want to increase navbox bloat any further. --NSH002 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was the one who moved its content from navbox code at the bottom of the article to a tag-implementable template standing on its own. I can't see objections were made to have the navbox code straight in the footer of the articles, however, I don't really see us applying that method as an habit. As for stackning of navboxes, we already have a very well functioning method of collecting related navboxes at the bottom of the articles, that are initially hidden, requiring interaction to open and make browsable. The Latin Union is an important international organisation. I suppose we still have space on the harddisks of Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to save bytes on Wikipedia by deleting the navbox overview of this organisation as opposed to extant navboxes of other equivalent, prominent organisations of international co-operation. However, an navbox like this can always be improved to be even more at hand, and you are more than welcome to assist if you have ideas. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    comment It is not a question of disk space on the wiki servers. Rather it has to do with unnecessary clutter on wiki pages. The fact that some editors feel it necessary to use {{Navboxes}} to wrap navboxes illustrates the problem of navbox bloat very well - it doesn't remove the clutter, it merely hides it (which may be even worse, since something hidden is much less likely to get fixed). Moreover, by introducing extra click(s) it mostly defeats the purpose of navboxes in the first place, namely to make it easy to navigate between related articles. See Template talk:Navboxes for details of even more problems with this template.--NSH002 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider it unncessary clutter? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chicby, WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not an argument, nor is anyone saying that the Latin Union is not important: we're discussing if having a template based upon the members of said union is needed. WP:NAVBOX reads:
  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.

The subject of this template is the Latin Union, which has its own article. But the Latin Union is for instance not mentioned in the article on France. The articles linked do not refer to other members in that sense. So it fails WP:NAVBOX. --Soetermans. T / C 11:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. However, as far as I'm concerned, I would say the template does qualify to the above conditions. Templates for national or regional memberships in organisations like this, and far less important ones, are typical for Wikipedia. In the academic world, in commerce, in religion, and so forth. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as you're concerned the template does qualify? How? I specifically pointed out how it does not meet WP:NAVBOX: the articles listed do not refer to each other. WP:OTHERSTUFF is also not an argument. You're basically just saying "I don't agree", without an argument. Which guidelines would suggest having this template is useful? --Soetermans. T / C 20:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Technically, I just moved an existing, acclaimed template content into its own template page. Thus, arguably, there was consensus about having this information presented in this template since before. I just changed the location of its code. You seem experienced on Wikipedia and also strikingly concerned about this very subject. I'm not really that experienced, nor concerned. Yet, for now, we are two people who advocate keeping it these template contents in addition to the arguable previous consensus of not deleting it in its previous location of the code. I'm sorry for not yet making an effort to argue more that this, but I shall do it if you do persist in your advoacy for deletion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soetermans has pointed out that this template fails WP:NAVBOX on points 1, 2 and 3, so it should be deleted. That's really all that matters in a deletion discussion. You say that it used to be "existing, acclaimed template content" [on the Latin Union page] but this isn't relevant because on that page it is not serving as a navbox (navigating between articles) but merely as a way of listing some information. The use of {{Navbox}} was just a lazy way of adding the info. Also, I see no "acclamation" relating to that info, neither on Talk:Latin Union, nor on your talk page. --NSH002 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicbyaccident:, I do believe I am somewhat experienced with Wikipedia, yes. But so are you! :) I might be more familiar with deletion discussions though, that's why I keep pressing on why it should stay or go. And it is my reading of the guidelines which leads me to believe we do not it. But hey, convince me otherwise! --Soetermans. T / C 08:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jedi

This nav box is very in-universe in that it is based on the appearances of fictional concept(s) (Jedi, Sith and The Force) in the Star Wars franchise. All of its character, media and topic links are, or can be, covered in one or more of the many existing Star Wars navigation boxes ({{Star Wars}}, {{Star Wars characters}} and multiple others), which are already more appropriately arranged from a real world perspective. — TAnthonyTalk 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Jediism is a notable topic that definitely should have been previously included in {{Star Wars}}.— TAnthonyTalk 06:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it fails WP:NAVBOX and the arbitrary distinction between what is current canon and past canon is confusing. Jedi and Sith are linked in the template title, so those two must be the subject. But what in the fictional universe of Star Wars is not connected to the Force, Jedi or Sith? It lists four video games, but what about every game in which a Jedi or Sith appears? It could be an error, but why is Darth Maul listed twice, once as Sith Lord with a C behind his name, indicating "Canon" and once in the, I guess, other group? I agree with TAnthony that everything in this template can easily be put into other Star Wars templates. --Soetermans. T / C 08:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete the entire section on "Franchise media", which is just an arbitrary selection of stuff already covered in Template:Star Wars and remove the L and C distinction. Wikipedia cares about notability, not canonicity. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then that would leave only the "Canon", "Force-sensitive users" and "Cultural impact sections", and all of those links are already included in either {{Star Wars}} or {{Star Wars characters}}.— TAnthonyTalk 19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_27&oldid=701988240"